Canon 28mm 1.8 vs 24mm 1.4 vs 15mm 2.8 Fisheye for concert venue

[johnstoy]

Canon 28mm 1.8 vs 24mm 1.4 vs 15mm 2.8 Fisheye

Considering a fast Wide angle lens for a 30D...Canon lenses in consideration are:
28mm 1.8 USM,
24mm 1.4 USM, and
15mm 2.8 Fisheye...

Primary use is Concert Venue low light Theater photography, no flash...from close to the stage proximity...

Primarily considering: Great Sharpness (Highest Resolution), Price, Lens Speed, Focus Speed, and general quality features...and any other positive qualities too...

Please recommend from above selection...

[Lester Wareham]

The 28/1.8 is very sharp in the centre but not so good in the corners on APS-C. It also has some CA which is a couple of clicks to fix in ACR (ACR Correction XMP files EF 28mm f1.8 USM. (http://www.zen20934.zen.co.uk/photography/LensTests/EF_28mm_f1.8_USM/EF%2028%20f1_8%20ACR%20APS_C%20CA%20Correct.zip)). AF is fast an flare resistance is very good, bokeh is not bad.

I don't have the 24/1.4 but acording to the MTF charts it should be slightly sharper than the 28/1.8 and this seems to be born out by the photozone tests. http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_28_18/index.htm
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_24_14/index.htm

According to these tests the CA is better controlled in the 24/1.4.

There is a big difference in size, weight and price between the two lenses, my personal view is the 24/1.4 is not worth the extra of any of these.

If cost is not an issue you might want to look at the 35/1.4.

The fisheye I can't comment on.

[Wilt]

Consider that 28mm is NOT wide at all, as it is equivalent to 45mm on FF camera.

The 24mm barely begins to get into wide classifification at equivalent to 38mm on FF camera.

15mm puts you into true wide, equivalent to 24mm on FF, but the fact that it is a fisheye means that ANY straight line which does not pass thru the exact center of the frame will be depicted BOWED!

[johnstoy]

The 28/1.8 is very sharp in the centre but not so good in the corners on APS-C. It also has some CA which is a couple of clicks to fix in ACR (ACR Correction XMP files EF 28mm f1.8 USM. (http://www.zen20934.zen.co.uk/photography/LensTests/EF_28mm_f1.8_USM/EF%2028%20f1_8%20ACR%20APS_C%20CA%20Correct.zip)). AF is fast an flare resistance is very good, bokeh is not bad.

I don't have the 24/1.4 but acording to the MTF charts it should be slightly sharper than the 28/1.8 and this seems to be born out by the photozone tests. http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_28_18/index.htm
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_24_14/index.htm
According to these tests the CA is better controlled in the 24/1.4.
There is a big difference in size, weight and price between the two lenses, my personal view is the 24/1.4 is not worth the extra of any of these.
If cost is not an issue you might want to look at the 35/1.4.
The fisheye I can't comment on.


Thanks Lester Wareham,
According to the Canon Camera Charts, the 24mm 1.4 lens has the same number of diaphragm blades (7) as the 28mm 1.8 lens...the bigger and heavier glass is a nice feature, as is the great 1.4 speed of the lens, but not worth the 800 dollar difference at this time...It will be my secondary lens for venue photography...to get a picture of either a portion of, or the entire band...that's just to sum up the show action as a whole...the 35/1.4 is tempting but just not much wider than the 50mm...

So I'm partial to the 28mm 1.8 for the price...

Consider that 28mm is NOT wide at all, as it is equivalent to 45mm on FF camera.
The 24mm barely begins to get into wide classification at equivalent to 38mm on FF camera.
15mm puts you into true wide, equivalent to 24mm on FF, but the fact that it is a fisheye means that ANY straight line which does not pass thru the exact center of the frame will be depicted BOWED!

Thanks Wilt,

I'm just starting to accept the fact that the 1.6 crop of the 30D makes a considerable difference...

So the fish eye is probably out of the picture because of the slower focusing motor, the curvature from off center, and the 2.8 speed of the lens...other than that it would be a pretty good lens to make up for the 1.6 crop.

Since my next widest fast lens at 2.8 or less is the 50mm 1.4,

I might have to settle for the 28mm 1.8...

I love to save, save, save, and buy once...and rushing to judgment and buying on they fly, is just not my style...however, I can't use zooms at the venue I like to take photos at, and fast primes are somewhat limited...as for the $1,700 dollar 14mm wide angle, well, that's a bit pricey for a hobbyist to use just for the finale shots and an occasional band shot...


Gentlemen, Thank you for the thoughtful insight and speedy replies...I might be able to decide now, and order the lens in time for a show this Friday...

[Stefan A]

Have you considered the Sigma 30mm f/1.4? Right now I am truing to decide between that and the 28 1.8. It seems that the consensus leans slightly toward the Sigma as far as quality. But that asumes you have a good copy. This whole good copy business is what is delaying my decision. I don't know how I am supposed to know if I have a good copy. But I guess you could always send it into Sigma just to be sure.

Stefan

[Lester Wareham]

Thanks Lester Wareham,
According to the Canon Camera Charts, the 24mm 1.4 lens has the same number of diaphragm blades (7) as the 28mm 1.8 lens...the bigger and heavier glass is a nice feature, as is the great 1.4 speed of the lens, but not worth the 800 dollar difference at this time...It will be my secondary lens for venue photography...to get a picture of either a portion of, or the entire band...that's just to sum up the show action as a whole...the 35/1.4 is tempting but just not much wider than the 50mm...

So I'm partial to the 28mm 1.8 for the price...
.....

I'm just starting to accept the fact that the 1.6 crop of the 30D makes a considerable difference...

....


Yes, the 28/1.8 was a compromise on the 35 & 24 1.4's for me also.

John, the 28 gives you a normal angle perspective as Wilt noted.

If this is too narrow you could consider the Sigma EX 20 mm f/1.8, although fast wide angles tend to be a bit dreamy wide open, however this might suit the ambiance of some performance arts.
http://www.prime-junta.net/pont/Reviews/a_Sigma_20_f1-8/a_Sigma_20_mm_f-1.8.html
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/sigma_20_18/index.htm

I don't have any personal experience of this lens or a good idea of any reliability issues so perhaps those that are more in the know could chip it.

[johnstoy]

Hi Stefan A.

A consistent shooter on this forum has great success with the Sigma 30mm 1.4, and posts his work in the Performing Arts forum...some others have good results with it too.

I wasn't as fortunate and returned my copy for credit and got a different L lens instead...

After shooting an entire show with a brand new 30mm 1.4, the results showed a slight but consistent and prominent short focus in every shot..none of the pics were in sharp focus, instead were about 10% to 15% off, in every photo...I believe it was the focusing motor that didn't reach the appropriate sensor distance during focusing...I didn't have time to send it in, as the next show was just a few days away, so I returned the lens and requested store credit toward a different L lens...

The USM focus of the Canon 28mm 1.8 lens might be the difference...The 1.4 speed of the Sigma was very tempting...

John

[johnstoy]

Yes, the 28/1.8 was a compromise on the 35 & 24 1.4's for me also.
John, the 28 gives you a normal angle perspective as Wilt noted.
If this is too narrow you could consider the Sigma EX 20 mm f/1.8, although fast wide angles tend to be a bit dreamy wide open, however this might suit the ambiance of some performance arts.
http://www.prime-junta.net/pont/Reviews/a_Sigma_20_f1-8/a_Sigma_20_mm_f-1.8.html
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/sigma_20_18/index.htm
I don't have any personal experience of this lens or a good idea of any reliability issues so perhaps those that are more in the know could chip it.

I'm almost there Lester,
The feedback you guys offer is very helpful in confirming months of repetitious research that basically confirms the information...the 24mm and the 35mm are a lot of super glass, but I don't need to use that particular lens size exclusively, and it's just a hobby for me...they might as well remain on the wish list for upgrading if ever needed for real serious and specifically devoted work... I have other wide angle zoom lenses that will cover the range...I simply can't use zooms at the venue I like to take pictures at...

At the local venue, I find that I can get by most of the time with a 1.8 lens...so, I'm already looking at the cash on hand to see if I should make the move this weekend in time for next weekend's show...

Again, your vote of confidence is very helpful...

I'll review any other feed back for consideration and more than likely place an order for a lens Monday...Ground freight arrives here in NE PA, where I am, the next day out of NYC...

[ed rader]

I'm almost there Lester,
The feedback you guys offer is very helpful in confirming months of repetitious research that basically confirms the information...the 24mm and the 35mm are a lot of super glass, but I don't need to use that particular lens size exclusively, and it's just a hobby for me...they might as well remain on the wish list for upgrading if ever needed for real serious and specifically devoted work... I have other wide angle zoom lenses that will cover the range...I simply can't use zooms at the venue I like to take pictures at...

At the local venue, I find that I can get by most of the time with a 1.8 lens...so, I'm already looking at the cash on hand to see if I should make the move this weekend in time for next weekend's show...

Again, your vote of confidence is very helpful...

I'll review any other feed back for consideration and more than likely place an order for a lens Monday...Ground freight arrives here in NE PA, where I am, the next day out of NYC...


i chose the 28 1.8 for the reasons you mention. it's just a hobby and i don't use the lens often. i did use it on thanksgiving tho :D .

ed rader

http://www.fototime.com/8FF7DD489E454A5/orig.jpg

http://www.fototime.com/A84CC0C423D5001/orig.jpg

http://www.fototime.com/40AC775CF765A50/orig.jpg

[johnstoy]

thanks for posting these photos Ed,

The BG in the flower picture is very, very good...and your composition while balancing the image of the shoulder profile statue is just absolutely fantastic ...don't tell me you carved it, too...(I dabbled in carving granite for a while)...that's is an awesome statue...

The cat's face is just peachy...I think pets are the best invention in the world...the cat looks most interested in what you are doing there with the camera...great shot, and a perfect example of the lens at work...

Your keen eye for art tells me you know this lens can do the job, for my particular needs...

[2005GLI]

Consider that 28mm is NOT wide at all, as it is equivalent to 45mm on FF camera.

The 24mm barely begins to get into wide classifification at equivalent to 38mm on FF camera.

15mm puts you into true wide, equivalent to 24mm on FF, but the fact that it is a fisheye means that ANY straight line which does not pass thru the exact center of the frame will be depicted BOWED!




i thought 28mm would be equivalent to 45mm on a crop camera not full frame?

[Mike Bell]

i thought 28mm would be equivalent to 45mm on a crop camera not full frame?

28mm lens on a 1.6 crop camera gives the same field of view as a 45mm lens on a full frame.

I got my 28mm f1.8 for indoor concerts too. It does the job well - if you are up close :

http://static.flickr.com/48/140409290_1bcb8d4af9_o.jpg

[Wilt]

i thought 28mm would be equivalent to 45mm on a crop camera not full frame?

You're obviously not accustomed to thinking in different formats and adjusting lens selection accordingly, which is true of most people who haunt this POTN forum who are not professionals.

Think this way...a 'normal' lens for ANY format is equivalent to the diagonal measure of its frame...24x36 = 45mm diagonal, 90x120mm (4x5 film) = 150mm diagonal, Canon APS-C = 32mm diagonal. The 35mm SLR has had a longish 50-55mm for its 'normal' for a variety of reasons, including the longer focal length 50mm is easier to design to have clearance for the reflex viewing mirror.

For wide angle, one can use ratio of the frame height, rather than the diagonal, since different formats do not all have the 1.5:1 relationship of the 35mm film frame. A 28mm is the first 'wide' lens for 35mm SLR (35mm is sometimes used by people as their personal interpretation of 'normal' rather than 'wide'), so that is equal to 1.17x frame height, so the equivalent FOV on APS-C would be using a 17.5mm lens.

Working backward, the 28mm lens on APS-C is 1.87x the frame height, so that is like using 45mm (44.5mm to be precise) on 35mm film format camera (5D or 1DsII FF dSLR)

[Tom W]

John, as silly as it sounds, it seems that you might need to decide on the best choice of focal length before anything else. Grab your 18-55 kit lens and head off to a venue. Take a few shots (yes, the lens doesn't have a fast-enough aperture), not so much for quality but rather to see what focal length suits your needs best. If you're shooting most at 18-25 mm, then a 20 or 24 mm is for you. If the middle range is you most-used range, then a 24, 28, 30, or 35 would be the best choice. Get a feel for what works for you.

There are good choices. Sigma 20/1.8 is pretty good. Canon 20/2.8 is fair/good. Canon 28/1.8 is good. Canon 24/1.4 is very good. They all have a bit softer IQ wide open compared to when they are stopped down a bit, but they all have the capability of shooting in fairly dark situations (well, the 20/2.8 Canon isn't quite fast enough, probably).

[johnstoy]

28mm lens on a 1.6 crop camera gives the same field of view as a 45mm lens on a full frame.

I got my 28mm f1.8 for indoor concerts too. It does the job well - if you are up close :

Thanks Mike,

That great picture of yours is sharp enough for me...I need something wider that the 50mm on the 30D body with a 1.6 crop...Although 45mm isn't considered wide in the 1.6 format as it would be in the FF, it's a step closer to my needs...

Thanks for posting...

[johnstoy]

You're obviously not accustomed to thinking in different formats and adjusting lens selection accordingly, which is true of most people who haunt this POTN forum who are not professionals.

Think this way...a 'normal' lens for ANY format is equivalent to the diagonal measure of its frame...24x36 = 45mm diagonal, 90x120mm (4x5 film) = 150mm diagonal, Canon APS-C = 32mm diagonal. The 35mm SLR has had a longish 50-55mm for its 'normal' for a variety of reasons, including the longer focal length 50mm is easier to design to have clearance for the reflex viewing mirror.

For wide angle, one can use ratio of the frame height, rather than the diagonal, since different formats do not all have the 1.5:1 relationship of the 35mm film frame. A 28mm is the first 'wide' lens for 35mm SLR (35mm is sometimes used by people as their personal interpretation of 'normal' rather than 'wide'), so that is equal to 1.17x frame height, so the equivalent FOV on APS-C would be using a 17.5mm lens.

Working backward, the 28mm lens on APS-C is 1.87x the frame height, so that is like using 45mm (44.5mm to be precise) on 35mm film format camera (5D or 1DsII FF dSLR)

Thank you Wilt,
I'm content to accept the 45mm comparison to the old 35mmSLR format...as long as this lens is considerably wider than my 50mm lens, it will help capture more performers on stage...

I like your detailed formulas for cross referencing the lens and specific format...If it wasn't 1700 dollars, I'd be buying the 14mm Canon Prime Lens. I have a couple of other wide angle zooms, but the aperture on them starts at f/3.5...It will do for outdoor pictures...It looks like I'll be progressing gradually toward a wider and wider lens collection as time goes by...I'm not a pro...so the $1700 dollar Canon 14mm wide angle lens will have to wait...

[johnstoy]

i thought 28mm would be equivalent to 45mm on a crop camera not full frame?

Thanks for the heads up 2005GLI,

the 1.6 format of the 30D, does create some interesting situations...the good side is, that they all can be compensated for, and for the most part are postitive...

Thanks,

John

[jfrancho]

I use a 28mm, along with a 35, 50, 85, and 100, for small club work. Unless you need a full stage shot of the entire band, the 28 works well. This is taken from about 5 feet to the right of the bass player with my knees touching the stage:

http://plan-b.smugmug.com/photos/111774376-L.jpg

[johnstoy]

John, as silly as it sounds, it seems that you might need to decide on the best choice of focal length before anything else. Grab your 18-55 kit lens and head off to a venue. Take a few shots (yes, the lens doesn't have a fast-enough aperture), not so much for quality but rather to see what focal length suits your needs best. If you're shooting most at 18-25 mm, then a 20 or 24 mm is for you. If the middle range is you most-used range, then a 24, 28, 30, or 35 would be the best choice. Get a feel for what works for you.

There are good choices. Sigma 20/1.8 is pretty good. Canon 20/2.8 is fair/good. Canon 28/1.8 is good. Canon 24/1.4 is very good. They all have a bit softer IQ wide open compared to when they are stopped down a bit, but they all have the capability of shooting in fairly dark situations (well, the 20/2.8 Canon isn't quite fast enough, probably).


Your feedback is greatly appreciated Tom,

I tried some of my other zoom lenses... their apertures start at 3.5 at the wide end...I tried one zoom at 28mm and it was pretty good, from where I was standing at the time...since I can't use zooms at the local theater venue any more, I'm strongly considering getting a prime...

It just needs to be wider than my widest prime at this time, which is the 50mm lens...

If I'm to spend 1200 dollars on the 24mm 1.4, than I might as well wait, save, save, save, and buy once, by getting the 1700 dollar Canon 14mm 2.8 lens...a non theater venue option is definitely one of the great Ultra Wide Angle f/2.8L Zooms, cause the price is right on these, when compared to the real wide primes...

In the mean time, just to hold me over (I'm retired and a hobbyist) the 28mm 1.8 should cover the next progression in lenses for me...Thereafter, It looks like the Ultra Wide Zooms...

[johnstoy]

I use a 28mm, along with a 35, 50, 85, and 100, for small club work. Unless you need a full stage shot of the entire band, the 28 works well. This is taken from about 5 feet to the right of the bass player with my knees touching the stage:

Thanks jfrancho,
You guys from Rochester, seem to know your photography pretty well...

I can only use short non pro, primes, at my location...

Your photo example gives an excellent perspective of the performer and the back drop, which is what I would like to capture in the photo...something along the lines of the band's Logo, or name, and a few additional band members in the back ground, too...

And with respect to your photo location...that's primarily the general area where I sit or stand in the pit at the concert venue...

The substantial price difference to upgrade to the 24mm 1.4 is still on my mind though, it's a lot faster than the $1700 14mm 2.8lens...I'd have to wait a while to save up for the 24mm...after all with Canon's rebate sales, this past month, I already extended myself by buying two long L lenses...so the 28mm 1.8 will be just fine...

Again, thanks for the picture, jfrancho...

[2005GLI]

You're obviously not accustomed to thinking in different formats and adjusting lens selection accordingly, which is true of most people who haunt this POTN forum who are not professionals.

Think this way...a 'normal' lens for ANY format is equivalent to the diagonal measure of its frame...24x36 = 45mm diagonal, 90x120mm (4x5 film) = 150mm diagonal, Canon APS-C = 32mm diagonal. The 35mm SLR has had a longish 50-55mm for its 'normal' for a variety of reasons, including the longer focal length 50mm is easier to design to have clearance for the reflex viewing mirror.

For wide angle, one can use ratio of the frame height, rather than the diagonal, since different formats do not all have the 1.5:1 relationship of the 35mm film frame. A 28mm is the first 'wide' lens for 35mm SLR (35mm is sometimes used by people as their personal interpretation of 'normal' rather than 'wide'), so that is equal to 1.17x frame height, so the equivalent FOV on APS-C would be using a 17.5mm lens.

Working backward, the 28mm lens on APS-C is 1.87x the frame height, so that is like using 45mm (44.5mm to be precise) on 35mm film format camera (5D or 1DsII FF dSLR)


I misread your original post, completely understand it. I need to stop reading so fast, screw things up that way.

[Strayz]

/snip

http://www.fototime.com/40AC775CF765A50/orig.jpg


you really should nto use teh camera to scare kitty like that. I hear that they have there ways at getting even..